15-year-old offender can’t lose right to use social media, court rules

Teenager was put on probation for 'lewd acts' unconnected to Internet use.

A teenager who was put on probation for molesting a 2-year-old, and restraining a 13-year-old, still can't have his rights to use social media taken away, a California Appeals court ruled.

The 15-year-old defendant, whose first name is given as Andre, was found guilty of holding the 13-year-old's arms while he ground his pelvis against her; and of touching the toddler's genitals. He was put on parole with a variety of conditions, including some relating to his use of computers.

Some of those computer-related conditions were unconstitutional, however, a panel of appeals court judges ruled last week. Andre's probation would have prohibited all computer use "unless supervised by a responsible adult over the age of 21 who is aware that the minor is on probation and of his charges." He was also banned from using "a computer for any purpose other than school related assignments," had to always be supervised while using a computer, and was barred from using Twitter or having "a MySpace page, a Facebook page, or any other similar page."

Those restrictions went too far, wrote the appeals judge in an opinion (PDF) first reported by CNET. Andre still has a First Amendment right to use the Internet; and any restrictions on his use have to be tailored to the crime—and his crimes had nothing to do with the Internet at all. "Absent any connection between Andre's criminal history and the blanket Internet ban, there is no support for the People's claim that it is properly related to future criminality." The trial court was ordered to modify the terms of probation, especially regarding use of social media and the blanket computer ban.

The constitutionality of restrictions on Internet use for adult sex offenders is also being tested in California right now. Proposition 35, which California voters just passed by an overwhelming margin, imposes new punishments for sex offenders, including a requirement that they disclose all their online identities—usernames, e-mail addresses, et cetera—to law enforcement. Yesterday, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order stopping those provisions from going into effect, after the ACLU and EFF filed a lawsuit challenging those parts of the law.

ONE day in 1996 the lights went off in a classroom in Georgia so that the students could watch a video. Wendy Whitaker, a 17-year-old pupil at the time, was sitting near the back. The boy next to her suggested that, since it was dark, she could perform oral sex on him without anyone noticing. She obliged. And that single teenage fumble wrecked her life.

Her classmate was three weeks shy of his 16th birthday. That made Ms Whitaker a criminal.

A teenager who was put on probation for ... restraining a 13-year-old ... was found guilty of holding the 13-year-old's arms while he ground his pelvis against her.

And the charge was "restraining" and not "sexual assault"?

Yet you're a sex offender if you're caught pissing in a park.

Really? What state do you live in?

I thought some states would consider that indecent exposure, which comes with a sex offender label?

Only 13 states do that.

Quote:

At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager.

"was barred from using Twitter or having a MySpace page, a Facebook page, or any other similar page."

A harsher punishment would be requiring him to have and update a MySpace page.

Funniest thing I've ready all day. +1

That was a good one ! LOL as well.

This is actually an interesting idea. Most people are afraid of sex offenders because you don't know where they are and what they're doing. If they're required to update a social media page then that might make it easier to keep track of where this person is, who they're hanging out with, and what kind of decisions they might be making!

If that was my daughter....... >:( Nuff said. This punk needs jail time, and NOW.

As to his First Amendment rights I have to agree. The slope is very slippery indeed.

Why should it make any deference whether it's your daughter or not? Irrational thinking like that is to blame for our rights being eroded.

He's 15 years old, sending him to jail is not a good way to teach him what's right/wrong.

The kid is mental. Sex offender/pedophile in the making. He molested a 2 year old. Sort of like a serial killer in the making by killing and torturing little animals. If not jail then a mental institution for life.

And it matters that is it my daughter or not because she is my flesh and blood. Let's just say good things would not be going down should I catch anyone doing that kind of crap to my daughter. EVER. That is not irrational. That is a father's love.

I also would like to point out that I agree in protecting this disgusting little pukes First Amendment Rights. He may be a disgusting puke, but he has Freedom of Speech.

And this place is full of people who are seriously suggesting that we should send a 15-year-old to jail, or even castrate him instead of sending the kid to get some councelling to get his sexual preferences worked out?

Good lord people. Your sadistic fetishes are disgusting. You are actually willing to ruin someone's life over not having worked out their sexuality in relation to the world at 15. Hell, you're not even willing to give him a chance, without knowing anything about the case except for what media told you.

You know, we had a funny case about a week ago here in Finland. A girl of 4 ran away from institution she was at and walked by the highway for a while. No one stopped for her. Main reason - people were afraid of pedophile stigma. "Can't stop because someone will see me, the middle aged man grab a four year old and put her into my car. My life will be over".

Reading comments here, I can certainly understand why. There actually are people who are completely irrational and not only willing, but actively desiring to ruin lives of others for their own sadistic pleasure. When faced with such a crowd, one would have to be insane to try to help a young girl walking alone on the highway.

You are actually willing to ruin someone's life over not having worked out their sexuality in relation to the world at 15. Hell, you're not even willing to give him a chance, without knowing anything about the case except for what media told you.

He's 15, he should already be clear on his sexuality, just not how to assume and live it...You'll note in the linked opinion that Andre apparently didn't contest the charges, just how his own statements were obtained.The 13 years old, that might seem weird, and certainly not a pleasant experience for the victim, but not entirely abnormal; However, who the hell "accidentally" fingers a 2 years old ?He is a sick, sick puppy from whom nothing good will come without a lot of counselling and keeping a very watchful eye on him.

And this place is full of people who are seriously suggesting that we should send a 15-year-old to jail, or even castrate him instead of sending the kid to get some councelling to get his sexual preferences worked out?

Good lord people. Your sadistic fetishes are disgusting. You are actually willing to ruin someone's life over not having worked out their sexuality in relation to the world at 15. Hell, you're not even willing to give him a chance, without knowing anything about the case except for what media told you.

You know, we had a funny case about a week ago here in Finland. A girl of 4 ran away from institution she was at and walked by the highway for a while. No one stopped for her. Main reason - people were afraid of pedophile stigma. "Can't stop because someone will see me, the middle aged man grab a four year old and put her into my car. My life will be over".

Reading comments here, I can certainly understand why. There actually are people who are completely irrational and not only willing, but actively desiring to ruin lives of others for their own sadistic pleasure. When faced with such a crowd, one would have to be insane to try to help a young girl walking alone on the highway.

Nice world you're making for the rest of us.

He molested a 2 YEAR OLD. See? Or did you miss that part?

But he still has First Amendment Rights none the less. Even if he is a sicko.

And this place is full of people who are seriously suggesting that we should send a 15-year-old to jail, or even castrate him instead of sending the kid to get some councelling to get his sexual preferences worked out?

Good lord people. Your sadistic fetishes are disgusting. You are actually willing to ruin someone's life over not having worked out their sexuality in relation to the world at 15. Hell, you're not even willing to give him a chance, without knowing anything about the case except for what media told you.

You know, we had a funny case about a week ago here in Finland. A girl of 4 ran away from institution she was at and walked by the highway for a while. No one stopped for her. Main reason - people were afraid of pedophile stigma. "Can't stop because someone will see me, the middle aged man grab a four year old and put her into my car. My life will be over".

Reading comments here, I can certainly understand why. There actually are people who are completely irrational and not only willing, but actively desiring to ruin lives of others for their own sadistic pleasure. When faced with such a crowd, one would have to be insane to try to help a young girl walking alone on the highway.

Nice world you're making for the rest of us.

I found a lost child in a store. My solution was to tell the kid not to move while I found a "sales associate" rather than lead the kid over to the register a few isles away. Welcome to life in the real world. Oh, and you never know when some reality TV asshats like "Perverted Justice" are doing a sting.

And this place is full of people who are seriously suggesting that we should send a 15-year-old to jail, or even castrate him instead of sending the kid to get some councelling to get his sexual preferences worked out?

Good lord people. Your sadistic fetishes are disgusting. You are actually willing to ruin someone's life over not having worked out their sexuality in relation to the world at 15. Hell, you're not even willing to give him a chance, without knowing anything about the case except for what media told you.

You know, we had a funny case about a week ago here in Finland. A girl of 4 ran away from institution she was at and walked by the highway for a while. No one stopped for her. Main reason - people were afraid of pedophile stigma. "Can't stop because someone will see me, the middle aged man grab a four year old and put her into my car. My life will be over".

Reading comments here, I can certainly understand why. There actually are people who are completely irrational and not only willing, but actively desiring to ruin lives of others for their own sadistic pleasure. When faced with such a crowd, one would have to be insane to try to help a young girl walking alone on the highway.

Smart judge, in my opinion. Yes, what this young man did is appalling (though not really surprising with the hormones running through the average 15 year old) but that doesn't mean that he should have all his rights taken away.

Probation and parole requirements should be ONLY related to the offense in question and the circumstances of that offense. I.E. if the internet was not involved in any way, shape or form? No restrictions on usage of the internet are acceptable.

So... when did Uncle Sam slip the use of the Internet into the constitutional rights of the United States? Understanding there is no First Amendment right to us a particular medium, specified in law, as to how one portrays their freedom of speech for this judge to articulate that he has "the right" to use the internet is insane.

Jail or prison IS NOT THE SOLUTION. Trust me. Or not, go there yourself. Either way, it is a place where damaged people go to become more damaged and dependent on the system. It's a draconian way of life that needs to be addressed.

I created an account just to comment on this particular article. I can't believe the amount of people saying "throw him in jail! That'll teach him!" No it won't. I'm 19 and I've led a pretty hard life, I've been kicked out of my parents house 3 times since I moved here when I was 13. Twice during the middle of winter, and while suspended from school. I spent my time wandering the streets like a damn hobo. The most recent time, I was out for a few months and staying wherever I could, including drug/alcohol rehabilitation centers. (Just for a bed, not drugs/alcohol) I even made a fire outside in - 20C weather to stay warm one night because I had no where else to go.

Let me tell you something, all that is nothing compared to jail. I had a friend go to jail for 1 month and he's a hardy guy, he was 19 at the time and it changed him forever. He told me of his experiences in jail, and it's absolutely horrible in there, even for a guy big enough to defend himself.

Granted this kid did molest a 2 year old, which is disgustingly sick and wrong. But at 15, jail will ruin a kid. If I were 15 and went to jail, I would be a completely different person today, and I can guarantee it wouldn't be for the better. I already have anger problems (Intermittent Explosive Disorder) going to jail would have made that problem worse dealing with the constant barrage of assholes in there threatening you for every little thing you have. Even if he went to a youth jail, there are a LOT of big guys under the age of 18, especially compared to a 15 year old.

No, what this kid needs is a lot of therapy and someone who understands him, to help him see that what he's done is wrong, and why he should never do it again.

Come on guys, this is just a 15 year old. He doesn't deserve to be thrown in jail... Yet. If he relapses and does something like this again, yes jail is deserved.. Although I guess the problem is "why risk him even doing it one more time?" which I can understand completely. No one wants this to happen to a loved one and that's understandable. But give him a chance to correct himself, jail sure as hell won't help in that regard.

So... when did Uncle Sam slip the use of the Internet into the constitutional rights of the United States? Understanding there is no First Amendment right to us a particular medium, specified in law, as to how one portrays their freedom of speech for this judge to articulate that he has "the right" to use the internet is insane.

It's an attempt to stop him from speaking, it's an issue regardless of the medium involved.

There's little to gain from it and allot to lose from the inevitable mission creep as censoring sex offenders becomes a justification for censoring other groups in the future.

That's one real sicko. I don't care what age he is, he deserves a 10 year ban from any internet access, church, daycare etc. and house arrest at the minimum. He's 15! He should be put into therapy/jail and treated as harsh as if he was 19! He has First Amendment rights but if he really wants to say something on a computer, he can do it with a USB drive.

Most people are afraid of sex offenders because you don't know where they are and what they're doing. If they're required to update a social media page then that might make it easier to keep track of where this person is, who they're hanging out with, and what kind of decisions they might be making!

If that was my daughter....... >:( Nuff said. This punk needs jail time, and NOW.

Why should it make any deference whether it's your daughter or not? Irrational thinking like that is to blame for our rights being eroded.

Thanks for saying that. I can't stand the irrational and emotion-based "What if it was YOUR daughter!" argument. The reason we have courts instead of lynchmobs is to ensure emotion is taken OUT of the verdict and sentencing.

Quote:

He's 15 years old, sending him to jail is not a good way to teach him what's right/wrong.

It's a great way to ensure he doesn't emotionally develop under normal social conditions though. Who doesn't want our youths to develop a prison-based emotional worldview as they grow up?

Your phrasing doesn't distinguish between sticking his dick in a two year old's mouth, and touching a two year old's genitals.

Did he touch the kids through clothes? Was it a tap or a rub? We have no information on that. Would it have ever been an issue if he didn't rub himself against a 13 year old? ("And he touched the baby, too!")

Your emotional ranting undermines your argument, and demonstrates why your position is not reflect in law.